Star Trek: Into Darkness (2013)

Dave

Custom title not found
Staff member
Supporter
Joined
Jan 5, 2001
Messages
18,885
Location
Way on Down South, London Town
It's Star Trek, but not as we know it Cap't.

I've still not seen this film and I do consider myself a Trekkie. Heck, I was the Moderator on the Star Trek board here. You have almost convinced me that this is worth watching.

Just as long as we don't later find out that this Alt-Universe is actually Hell and they have all been dead for the entire series of movies! :eek:
 

Dr Zoidberg

Decapodian
Joined
Sep 1, 2013
Messages
55
It absolutely worth watching, even if only so you can say exactly why you didn't like it in the way that only scifi fans do.
 

TheDustyZebra

Aspiring notaphilist
Staff member
Supporter
Joined
Nov 26, 2009
Messages
8,865
Location
Colorado
Just watched this for the first time, as we just bought the DVD.

I laughed till I cried when Scotty told Kirk, "it's gonna be like jumping out of a moving car, off a bridge, and into a shot glass," and Kirk said, "it's ok, I've done it before." I missed about two minutes of the movie at that point, laughing so hard.

I have to say that I didn't take to the first of this new series the first time I saw it. But my husband insisted on watching it every time it came on TV, which was at least every other day at that point in time, and it grew on me. I loved the casting from the start, but the plot lost me in places. I'm probably still messed up on that. But this second movie I like better than the first, on first viewing. The cast is still fantastic -- I think the casting director should win an Oscar. I didn't like the idea, when they first started talking about it, of trying to re-create the youth of characters we know so well -- but it's so spot-on, for the most part, that it works. Kirk is actually the weakest match, but even he hits it most of the time. The times that he doesn't, I believe, are the fault of the lines, not the actor; there are things that one just knows Kirk would have said, and he says something else instead.

All that aside, I was puzzled about some of the scenes where the ship's gravity was out and they kind of alternated between running and floating -- but I could have missed something that would have explained that. I'm bad about that sort of thing. After it's been on TV about twenty more times, I'll sort it all out...maybe.

My husband didn't like this one as much, but he will watch it again and again and decide he did after all.

We were both rather put out by "the scene" with Kirk and Spock -- as soon as he started heading toward the warp core, I just couldn't believe they were going there. And I kept not believing it, and they did. Just...no.

Oh yeah, also made note of the line, for future personal use, where Spock said, "I'm expressing multiple attitudes simultaneously. To which one do you refer?" :D
 

neopeius

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2013
Messages
65
Location
http:\\galacticjourney.org Science fact/fiction
Just watched and profoundly disliked. At no point did I ever have any concern for the characters because every scene had the same format:

1) DANGER!
2) ONLY CHANCE OF SURVIVAL IS AN INCREDIBLY LOW PROBABILITY OPTION JUST INTRODUCED THROUGH EXPOSITION!
3) IT WORKED!

And, of course, you can take virtually any 30 second segment and find about seven things wrong with it, scientifically, plot-wise, consistency-wise, etc.

I don't mind checking my brain at the door, but when my 9-year old comes up with better plots and more-accurate science in her comic books, well, let's just say J.J.Abrams made no money off me, and he never will.
 

neopeius

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2013
Messages
65
Location
http:\\galacticjourney.org Science fact/fiction
That is something only a tiny percentage of viewers would even think of and is really watching the movie with too much of a scientific mindset.
In other words, "People are stupid, so feel free to make stuff up."

I like my science fiction to have science in it.

Just as a gritty World War 2 film would be ruined if the soldiers used tape guns, science fiction is ruined when a writer doesn't care one whit for science (or consistency).
 

Teresa Edgerton

Goblin Princess
Staff member
Supporter
Joined
Nov 1, 2004
Messages
13,837
Location
California
I just saw this a few days ago. There were a few lines that made me laugh, but overall I found it boring. There was too much action and nothing to leave me with something to think about (as was often, but not always, the case with the original TV series). I was never a big fan of Kirk's cowboy mentality, but in these new movies I find it positively obnoxious, not to mention reckless and stupid. Personally, I would have been very happy if the first movie had resolved with Spock given command of the Enterprise, and subsequent movies were new adventures with Spock as the captain.
 

Parson

This world is not my home
Supporter
Joined
Oct 11, 2006
Messages
8,447
Location
Iowa
I just saw this a few days ago. There were a few lines that made me laugh, but overall I found it boring. There was too much action and nothing to leave me with something to think about (as was often, but not always, the case with the original TV series). I was never a big fan of Kirk's cowboy mentality, but in these new movies I find it positively obnoxious, not to mention reckless and stupid. Personally, I would have been very happy if the first movie had resolved with Spock given command of the Enterprise, and subsequent movies were new adventures with Spock as the captain.

Ah, Teresa, thou art a literary wonder. Dost thou not know that much more of the world would much prefer to see a gun fighter duel to attain justice for a needy human than to hear a philosopher teach about the ways of justice and honor?
 

Dave

Custom title not found
Staff member
Supporter
Joined
Jan 5, 2001
Messages
18,885
Location
Way on Down South, London Town
I finally saw this and it was reasonably good, but it wasn't Star Trek.

Trying to craft a tale that will entertain such a fan base whilst simultaneously be 'market standard' enough to give the stockholders a big hard-on was a monumentally challenging undertaking.
But it wasn't doing that. It isn't aimed at the older Star Trek "fan-base". They perceive them as too old for their marketing purposes - we don't buy enough action figures or ephemera. Many fans of TOS who stopped its cancellation will be dead now. It is clearly aimed at some new, younger audience that they think will be out there for it. If it was for the existing fan-base we would have got the TNG/DS9/VOY films that we wanted.

So, it could have been made with completely different characters and called something else, but the name 'Star Trek' still carries enough weight to make it a guaranteed success. In addition, the old 'fan-base' cannot help but bring themselves to watch it anyway. I held on a long time myself, but eventually I would be forced to watch anything they called 'Star Trek'.

Still it was better than 'John Carter of Mars.'
 

DisapprovingOwl

Active Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2015
Messages
25
Was a bit disappointed they decided to do Khan as the antagonist of this one, as well as riffing off of certain key scenes from Star Trek II. It felt a bit like they were squandering the premise they'd set up so successfully with 2009's Star Trek - that one at least wasn't afraid to take risks and make changes to the universe (destroying Vulcan springs to mind), giving the feeling of this universe being a new frontier where anything could happen. So then rather than carve out fresh, new developments in this universe, they simply cherry-picked a popular villain who'd already been the main antagonist of a different Star Trek film and were content to just do their own take on him. Call me crazy, but I was hoping for something that developed this new universe and further distinguished it from the old - a path in which the alliances and power balance we're familiar with from the original series onwards could shift and develop in completely different directions to what we'd expect, and unfotunately that's not what this film delivered.

I would have totally excused everything if they'd actually killed off Kirk, though - although I love him, it would have been an incredibly bold statement of intent and show that anything really could happen in this new universe.
 

logan_run

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2013
Messages
327
Its eseir in Hollywood to run with a old idea then risk doing something new/.
 

Droflet

I don't teach chickens how to dance.
Joined
Apr 15, 2010
Messages
2,873
Location
Australia
Okay, been holding off on this for a while. So firstly, did I enjoy the movies? Yep. However, being a fan of TOS, I was simultaneously appalled. Movie one, Kirk's a jerk. They just managed to pull that one out of the fire at the end. Then we have Into Darkness. So, these genius' took an iconic American hero, a man who does not believe in the no win scenario, a man who tricks his way out of death, a man we have come to rely on as the one who will never quit, no matter how dire the circumstances. At true hero in the vein of Hornblower. And what do the writers do with this iconic hero? Turn him into a wimp. He's facing death, and that of his crew. Does he come up with a brilliant trick? Nope. Worse still, girly boy (no offense to the ladies) turns to the crew and says, "Sorry." Sorry? Are they f*cking kidding? To Spock he says that he doesn't know what to do? Wimpy, wimpy, wimp, wimp.
Give me the old movies, not this politically correct, depth of character analysis, steaming great pile of manure.
Bring Shatner back. Kidding. But really folks, this is star trek in name only. I don't want to see wimpy boy in the next one, I WANT KIRK.
Now, I think I'll go have a nice cup of tea.
.
 

TheDustyZebra

Aspiring notaphilist
Staff member
Supporter
Joined
Nov 26, 2009
Messages
8,865
Location
Colorado
I guess they stopped showing it on TV after I made my original comments above, because I don't recall having seen it again since then, and I can't remember it at all. Not even the line that made me laugh and miss two minutes, nor "the scene" I was upset about. Must be terribly memorable.

Oh well, it will come around again (and again and again) at some point. The past couple of weeks have been all Armageddon and Forrest Gump, so it's bound to show up sooner or later and I'll find out what all my (and Droflet's) fuss was about.
 

Kerrybuchanan

Delusions of Grammar
Joined
Aug 3, 2014
Messages
2,245
Location
Ballynahinch, County Down
I enjoyed both films, but then I have never been a passionate Trekkie. I did watch all the original series when it was first aired, and all the old films (which weren't at all bad, with the exception of the first, which was self-indulgent, boring rubbish), and I thought the casting was truly excellent in the new films -- apart from Chris Pine as Kirk. He looked the part, vaguely, but he wasn't right. It could be the lines he was given rather than the actor, but I'm not convinced.
 

Droflet

I don't teach chickens how to dance.
Joined
Apr 15, 2010
Messages
2,873
Location
Australia
IMO, it's not Chris Pine's fault. The writers, who I had a lot of time for, before this mess, are the culprits. An alternative Star Trek universe. Brilliant. Then see what they do with it. They are fans, self avowed nerds, and they do this? As action films they're fine, but, as Dave put it, It's Star Trek but not as we know it. Drof shake head, wandering into the sunset seeking beeeeeeeer.
 

Vince W

Towel Champion
Supporter
Joined
Sep 9, 2011
Messages
3,051
I agree, the writing in ITD is horrible. How could they use the greatest Star Trek film as a basis and then cock it up so badly? They would have been better off telling a new story rather than getting a great one so wrong. Shame on them.
 

Khuratokh

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2016
Messages
370
Location
Leiden
IMO, it's not Chris Pine's fault. The writers, who I had a lot of time for, before this mess, are the culprits. An alternative Star Trek universe. Brilliant. Then see what they do with it. They are fans, self avowed nerds, and they do this? As action films they're fine, but, as Dave put it, It's Star Trek but not as we know it. Drof shake head, wandering into the sunset seeking beeeeeeeer.
They are not fans. Abrams has gone on record saying he never liked Trek. It was too philisophical.
What 's the point of a reboot if all you do is retread old ground? Also from the making of, it becomes clear he just wanted to make cool setpieces and make up a plot later to connect them. I don't like what they did with the women. They went from being proactive to just some skirt. Which might have been fine in the 60's but has no place here now. Then there are the references to old Trek, that feel tacked on just to show us the creators 'get' Star Trek. But to me it just shows how much they don't get it.
 

Vince W

Towel Champion
Supporter
Joined
Sep 9, 2011
Messages
3,051
They are not fans. Abrams has gone on record saying he never liked Trek. It was too philisophical.
What 's the point of a reboot if all you do is retread old ground? Also from the making of, it becomes clear he just wanted to make cool setpieces and make up a plot later to connect them. I don't like what they did with the women. They went from being proactive to just some skirt. Which might have been fine in the 60's but has no place here now. Then there are the references to old Trek, that feel tacked on just to show us the creators 'get' Star Trek. But to me it just shows how much they don't get it.
Well put. 'brams-Trek feels like an audition reel for Star Wars now. He was just trying to get Disney's attention and could care less whether or not he lived up to the spirit and ideals of Star Trek.
 
Top